Kerala High Court
Kurungottumadathil Balan vs Kozhukkunnon Karthiyayani on 21 January, 2026
2026:KER:5163
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947
RSA NO. 640 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2025
IN AS NO.16 OF 2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT -
III, THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 20.12.2018 IN OS NO.317 OF 2016 OF MUNSIF COURT,
KUTHUPARAMBA
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT IN AS/DEFENDANT NO.2 IN OS:
KURUNGOTTUMADATHIL BALAN
AGED 74 YEARS, S/O KUNHIRAMANAN, (NAME WRONGLY
SHOWN AS ARUNGODAN BALAN) PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
CHENTHODE HOUSE, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR
SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN AS/PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT
NO.1 IN OS:
1 KOZHUKKUNNON KARTHIYAYANI
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O KUNHIRAMAN, W/O UDAYA KUMAR,
HOUSE WIFE, KOZHUKKUNNON HOUSE, MUZHAKKUNNU
AMSOM, PALA DESOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
2026:KER:5163
R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025
2
2 KOZHUKKUNNON LALU
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O LATE K.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT
LALU BHAVAN, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
3 KOZHUKKUNNON SAJESH
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O LATE K.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT
LALU BHAVAN. MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 670673
4 KALLIYADAN SARASWATHI
AGED 59 YEARS, W/O LATE KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT
LALU BHAVAN, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
5 KOZHUKKUNNON PADMAJA
AGED 37 YEARS, D/O LATE KOZHUKKUNNON PARVATHI,
RESIDING AT KOZHUKKUNNON, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM,
PALA DESOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670673
6 KOZHUKKUNNON SATHYAN,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O LATE KOZHUKKUNNON PARVATHI,
KOZHUKKUNNON, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DE SOM,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
7 K.SUMESH,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O KOZHUKUNNON SARASWATHI,
KOZHUKKUNNON, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM,
IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 670673
8 K.SUNI,
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O LATE KOZHUKKUNNON
SARASWATHI, KOZHUKKUNNON, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM,
PALA DESOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670673
9 K.SURESH,
AGED 31 YEARS, S/O LATE KOZHUKKUNNON
SARASWATHI, RESIDING AT KOZHUKKUNNON,
MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
2026:KER:5163
R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025
3
10 K.SUVARNA,
AGED 27 YEARS, D/O LATE KOZHUKKUNNON
SARASWATHI, KOZHUKKUNNON, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM,
PALA DESOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670673
11 KOZHUKKUNNON LAKSHMI @ YESHODA,
AGED 48 YEARS, W/O VASU, HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING
AT ARINGODE HOUSE, UTHIYOOR, MATTANNUR, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670702
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.01.2026, ALONG WITH RSA.678/2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:5163
R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 1ST MAGHA, 1947
RSA NO. 678 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2025 IN AS
NO.17 OF 2019 OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - III,
THALASSERY ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
20.12.2018 IN OS NO.471 OF 2016 OF MUNSIF COURT,
KUTHUPARAMBA
APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
KURUNGOTTUMADATHIL BALAN
AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, PRESENTLY
RESIDING AT CHENTHODE HOUSE, COOLIE,
MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM, IRITTY TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670674
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH V.NAIR
SHRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:
1 KOZHUKKUNNON KARTHIYAYANI,
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.KUNHIRAMAN, NO OCCUPATION,
KOZHUKKUNNON VEEDU, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA
DESOM, IRITTY TALUK. KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670673
2026:KER:5163
R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025
5
2 KOZHUKKUNNON SUBI,
AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.UDAYAKUMAR, KOZHUKKUNNON
VEEDU, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM, IRITTY
TALUK. KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
3 KOZHUKKUNNON SUMESH,
AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SARASWATHI, MUZHAKKUNNU
AMSOM, PALA DESOM, IRITTY TALUK KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
4 K.SUNI
AGED 35 YEARS, S/O SARASWATHI, MUZHAKKUNNU
AMSOM, PALA DESOM, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 670673
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 21.01.2026, ALONG WITH RSA.640/2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:5163
R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025
6
EASWARAN S., J
--------------------------------
R.S.A No.640 of 2025
&
R.S.A No.678 of 2025
-------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
These two appeals arise out of the concurrent findings of the Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba, in O.S No.317/2016 and O.S No.471/2016. The facts in O.S No.471/2016 is a subject matter of R.S.A No.678/2005, therefore will be dealt with together with R.S.A No.640/2025 for disposal.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:-
The appellant faced a suit for partition filed by the legal heirs of one Devaki. The defense raised by the appellant was that, he had married Devaki after following the ceremonies for making a Hindu marriage 2026:KER:5163 R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025 7 valid. The plaintiffs on other hand contended that, the appellant cannot lawfully marry Devaki, because, at that point of time, there was an earlier subsisting marriage with one Devi of Thiruvonapuram. In fact, out of the said marriage, the appellant had begotten children also and the said marriage was registered. When O.S No.317/2016 was pending, the appellant also instituted O.S No.471/2016 seeking for the declaration that, he is the sole legal heir of the deceased Devaki. Both the suits were tried together. The question before the courts was as to which marriage would prevail. The appellant on one hand contended that the first marriage with Devi, with whom he has eloped, was not performed following the religious ceremonies required for making the marriage valid. Though the said marriage was registered in terms of the provisions contained under the Kerala Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1957, the appellant asserted that the said marriage was not preceded by any 2026:KER:5163 R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025 8 religious ceremonies. The plaintiffs in O.S No.317/2016 contended that the registration presupposes a valid marriage and therefore the cohabitation with Devaki will not lead to a presumption of marriage with the appellant herein. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that the appellant has not satisfactorily proved that the cohabitation with Devaki was after dissolving the first marriage with Devi through any process known to law. Accordingly, proceeded to consider the claim for partition on merits and found that the parties are following Marumakkathayam Law and thus decreed O.S No.317/2016 and dismissed O.S No.471/2016. The appellant aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court preferred two appeals as A.S No.16/2019 and A.S No.17/2019 before the Additional District Court -III, Thalassery, which were also dismissed. Hence, these appeals.
2026:KER:5163 R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025 9
3. Heard Shri.Rajesh V. Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
4. Prima facie this Court felt that these appeals do not deserve any consideration, because, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. However, the learned counsel for the appellant raised certain legal points, which necessitated this Court to look deep into the issues in order to find out as to whether if any substantial question of law arises for consideration.
5. According to Shri.Rajesh V. Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant, the courts below misdirected itself to the entire issue. In fact, an issue regarding which marriage is legally sustainable was required to be framed by the trial court and the parties should have been given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the first marriage though registered in terms 2026:KER:5163 R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025 10 of the Kerala Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1957, was not preceded by any customary rites and thereby the said marriage does not become valid in terms of Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
6. In support of his contention relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajeeve v. Sarasamma [2021 (4) KLT 171]. It is further pointed out that, if the first marriage is not preceded by any religious rites, then necessarily mere registration will not lead to a presumption that the same is a valid marriage and therefore on the basis of the long cohabitation with Devaki, a presumption regarding the marriage is drawn and thus he is the sole legal heir of Devaki, who is entitled to inherit the property. In support of his contention relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal [2024 KHC 6245].
2026:KER:5163 R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025 11
7. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
8. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant basically hinges upon the sustainability of the first marriage. The cursory reading of judgments of both the courts would show that the registration certificate of the first marriage with Devi was produced and it was admitted by the appellant. Though the appellant had a case that the said marriage was not solemnized by following the customary ceremonies, there is no evidence to prove the said fact.
9. It is true that the Supreme Court in Dolly Rani (supra) held that mere issuance of a certificate by an entity in the absence of any ceremony being performed by the parties under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, will not lead to a presumption of a valid marriage. But then, one must remember that 2026:KER:5163 R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025 12 the registration under the rules presupposes a performance of a valid solemnization of marriage in terms of Sections 7 and 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Since the appellant admitted that the marriage with Devi was registered, it was incumbent upon him to prove that the said marriage was not preceded by any customary ceremonies. In the absence of any such proofs, the presumption cannot be rebutted.
10. Once it is found that the appellant had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to disprove the presumption of marriage, especially since it is he who asserted that despite the registration of marriage, the same is not valid for want of customary ceremonies, it necessarily leads to a conclusion that the relationship with Devaki cannot be given a legal colour, because, even if it is assumed that a long cohabitation will lead to a presumption of a valid marriage with the second wife Devaki, the second marriage is during the subsistence of 2026:KER:5163 R.S.A Nos.640 and 678 of 2025 13 the first marriage, therefore the same cannot be held to be valid under the eye of law.
11. Viewed in the above perspective, the judgments of the courts below cannot be termed to be illegal or vitiated by any perverse appreciation of evidence. In the absence of any evidence at the hands of the appellant to disprove the want of customary ceremonies of the first marriage, it must be held that the cohabitation with Devaki was during the subsistence of the second marriage and cannot be given a legal colour.
Resultantly, finding that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals, these appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S. JUDGE AMR